Failure of the Australian Legal System to Provide True Justice

The Australian Criminal Justice system has an intricate and diverse structure that makes it one of the most unique systems in the world. The Commonwealth of Australia was approved by the British Parliament in 1900 and came into existence on January 1, 1901. The federal constitution combined British and American practices, with a parliamentary government, but with two houses - the popularly elected House of Representatives and Senate representing the former colonies. This began the start of a new era of policing. (Findlay, Odgers, Yeo). The Commonwealth of Australia is a federalist government composed of a national government and six State governments. There are nine different criminal justice systems in Australia - six states, two territories, and one federal. The eight States and Territories have powers to enact their own criminal law, while the Commonwealth has powers to enact laws. Criminal law is administered principally through the federal, State and Territory police. (Chappell, Wilson, Heaton). In this essay an in depth analysis of the Australian criminal justice system will be given, along with a comparison to the United States criminal justice system throughout the essay. As well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the system and finally a brief summary of how the Australian criminal justice system structure could be improved to better suit the evolving society. Australia has a complex and very intuitive system of policing that

In the 21st Century many things have been called into question. Among those things is the adversarial system that Australia’s Rule of Law system follows. The argument stands that the adversarial system is too aggressive in its approach to the legal system. Would Australia benefit more from the adversarial system changing into the inquisitorial system or would it be more beneficial to create a hybrid of the two. This essay will aim to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both the current system of adversarial and the more European system of inquisitorial. Highlighting why it is important to begin moving away from a traditional adversarial system drawing evidence from the Family court of Australia, the Netherlands and Nigeria’s current

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

In today's Australia the price of handling a substantial litigation matter is unobtainable for the average Australian, justice does indeed go to the highest bidder and “Unless you are a millionaire or a pauper, the cost of going to court to protect your rights is beyond you.” George Brandis, shadow attorney-general. To say that justice is earned and reserved for the population of Australia is a myth and it is true that legal aid community centres are grossly underfunded and explicitly for those in dire need of legal aid and do not represent the common Australian, there is no universal legal safety-net unlike the education and health systems.

The Australian legal system follows a formal structure, strict rules of evidence and conduct and utilizes the adversarial system of trial for both criminal and civil proceedings. The procedure relies on the skills of representatives of each party and evidence concerning the case presented to an impartial judge or magistrate (and sometimes a jury). Courts apply fairness to a profound extent through adopting the doctrine of natural justice, parties involved have the right to know accusations made so they are able to collect evidence for defence and cross examination. Fairness was practiced in the case Southan v Costa (2017) NSWLEC 1230 that cited the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 which instructed the Land and Environment Court NSW on only making an order if the tree concerned had caused harm or posed future threat. Fairness was also demonstrated through the referral to precedents including the Freeman v Dillon (2012) NSWLEC 1057 to assess the degree of damage, necessary action and consistent orders. The previous cases assisted in concluding the orders of the Court ‘requiring periodic removal of dead wood’ to reduce the risk of injury and annoyance of natural shedding past the respondent’s property. Court jurisdiction and high enforceability aid in achieving justice for individuals when ruling sentences and court orders. Enforceability is exemplified when the actor Steve Bisley was ordered to perform 300 hours of community service by the magistrate of Sydney's Downing Centre Local Court for charges of actual bodily harm relating to domestic violence towards his former wife Sally Burleigh in September 2009. This case additionally reflected equality in application regardless political, social and religious standing, gender and racial identity. The effectiveness of courts achieving justice in

The Australian justice system implements the adversarial system in which opposing parties present their case before an unbiased decision maker, to ensure procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice are upheld.The system has been structured this way to ensure justice is served for the victim, offender and the broader community. The nature of justice is that it is equal to all, fair from bias and is accessible. In the case on R v Rolfe and R v Weston (2017) the two offenders; Timothy Rolfe and John Weston, members of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club were sentenced at the NSW Supreme Court on a joint criminal enterprise for the murder of 29-year-old Laurence Starling. The killing was motivated by revenge for an unpaid extortion debt of $200,000 between the deceased’s business partner Mr Fields and a high-ranking member of the ‘’Rebels’’ who sent his subordinates to seize Mr Field’s assets as compensation. The complex circumstances of the crime were problematic for the justice system because particular methods had to be implemented in the process of achieving justice however the justice system was relatively effective in reaching a just outcome for majority of the stakeholders due to its resource efficiency, responsiveness, accessibility, standards of fairness, protection of individual rights and meeting society’s needs.

These guidelines and procedures help to “provide for orderly conduct of legal processes and ensure the rights of the litigants. (Schuetz; pg. 37)”. In the case of Reilly Winter versus TBT Innovative trial, held in court on Saturday, February 11, 2017. The court engages the service of the jury to decide on the case and the court is presided over by judges, even though it is a civil case. This is provided by the seventh amendment, which allows the use of juries in civil cases but does not mandate it.

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

Justice is the concept of moral rightness that is based on equality, access and fairness. This means that the law is applied equally, understood by all people and does not have a particularly harsh effect on an individual. In Australia, the adversary system is used as a means to achieve justice by proving the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, committed the crime. The criminal trial process has many features which aim to fulfill the requirements of achieving justice. These elements, though considers equality, fairness and access, are flawed in practice. Flaws such as the handling of evidence, jurors not understanding instructions, inadequate funds for legal

The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fairness to be ‘the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable’ and justice as ‘the quality of being fair or reasonable’ (Oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2014). Investigation of the characteristics of the Australian Legal System (ALS) including its adoption, structure and operational rules, reveal that for the most part the system is based on these two attributes. This inference is further evidenced by the legally binding operational framework assigned to the financial services industry and reflected in the codes of practice that also guide it.

The perception of the Australian criminal justice system’s legitimacy is determined by the actions of three institutions, and the manner in which they address issues of justice within society. For the criminal justice system to be seen with integrity and valued for its role, it is vital that all members of the community see the appropriate rectification of injustices through the police, courts and corrections. However, particular groups within society encounter the illegitimacy and social inequity embedded within these institutions, diminishing the effectiveness to which they fulfill their role. For women in particular, the institutions of the criminal justice system are notably unethical in their treatment of both victims and perpetrators of crime. Despite many reforms and recommendations for change, the criminal justice system ultimately fails in achieving justice for women, with the courts demonstrating the most significant attempt to eliminate social inequality and victimisation.

Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .

It is widely recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of significant reform, if the nation’s present and future need for fair justice is to be met.

However, under further analysis, it becomes apparent that the verdict acts more as a deterrent rather than an upstanding legal configuration. The legal system, for the average person in New South Wales, is only a figure of authority that deters the individuals from breaking the law, which some may say is what it is there to do. Conversely, we need it to do more than that, we need it to properly meet our requests when we are involved in legal